This is Tangurena's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Tangurena's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I think you're asking the wrong question. Research In Motion (the makers of Blackberries) are up for sale again. They got into the news in a bad way several years ago. At that time they had the strongest encryption and most corporations used Blackberries when staff had to have remote wireless access to email. A number of countries threatened to outlaw Blackberries if RIM didn't provide a mechanism for those countries to get access to the emails being sent. As a result many companies moved away from Blackberries. My company (which has a large and increasing presence in Asia - especially in the countries that complained the loudest) has gone from a 100% Blackberry company to 0% Blackberry due to that fiasco. Between the speed that RIM rolled over and surrendered, and how they were unable to keep up in the innovation/features race, they've lost almost all of their market share. RIM is up for sale again, and the price of the company is about 5% of what it was before they gave backdoor access to a number of other countries. When some computer hardware companies were sold to Chinese interests, it was common to hear the claim that those companies would be allowing the Chinese government backdoors into your hardware. From Snowden's revelations, it turns out that our own government was doing that sort of thing and that's why we were afraid that "the other guys" would continue the exact same behavior. You see this sort of "worry" in politics where policies (and executive orders) published under the Bush administration are now threats to the existence of the human race (ok, slight exaggeration) now that Obama is continuing those policies. My theory is that blowback from the NSA debacle will destroy the US computer and software industries over the next decade.
He needs to be thrown off all the committees that he is on. He's getting big bucks from contributors solely because of his committee membership, so tossing him off would hurt him in the pocket. What Reid *should* have done was to throw him off one committee every time he chose to vote Republican. Since the Democratic party had seats to assign, they should have assigned them to *real* Democrats and not Sore Loserman.
I'm sad to see you phrased it like I can imagine me saying to myself, “I think it would be a hoot to be able to tell everyone else what to do and satisfying my craven lust for power while using my office to enrich myself and my friends.” I can’t imagine any sane person thinking, “Wow, the country’s in an awful mess but I think I know how to fix it and I’m sure I can do it, all I have to do persuade a hundred milllion or so voters, sixty United States Senators, two-hundred and eighteen members of the House of Representatives, and twenty or thirty foreign heads of state to give me the permission, money, time, and space to put my plans to work.” You see, I actually ran for elected office last year. I lost. And that's OK. If it couldn't be me, I'm glad the guy who won, won, and it wasn't either of the other 2 nuts (and I'm sure the other 2 losers thought the same way). Sure, if I could have convinced about 15,000 more voters that I was the better dog in that fight, then it would be me in the hot seat. I'm totally thrilled that as many random strangers voted for me as they did. The office I was running for affects a lot of people in Colorado, and the people that made it into office are continuing to make the same expensive mistakes their predecessors made before, and that tears me up. Crap is broken, and I think I could help fix it. Sure it would be a lot easier if I could wave my magic dictatorial wand (or whatever it was that Darth Cheney waved) and make people shout stuff like Yes, Sir! How high, sir!. But it doesn't work like that. I pay taxes. You pay taxes. We all deserve that our taxes get spent in a more responsible manner (for various values of "responsible"). When I have a "craven lust for power" then I go play Rail Tycoon or Civilization.
What I found (in my years of working in business) to be the most useful skills I learned in college were giving presentations. Far too many engineers (including myself) wanted nothing to do with standing in front of others, but as I've worked, I find that I'm usually the one sent to customers' sites as I'm the one who can explain things the best, and I also can dress reasonably businessy (I also lack piercings and tattoos, but that's partly because I'm scared of needles). I'm currently doing well as an older programmer, but I see developers a few years older than me having a very hard time finding work, so I'm now going back to school to transition into yet another career. I guess that a background in IT, along with a CPA, will position me for some >What should I be doing to prepare myself for an uncertain future? I'd say to have as many different skills as practical. What pays big bucks this decade may end up being totally obsolete the next: and your freshman orientation councillors will probably mention that you can expect to have 5+ totally different careers in your working lifetime. If you find yourself thinking that any of the points on this page: to be good ideas (or accurate descriptions of your own ideas), then you are most certainly wrong. Also, if your field has occupational licenses of any kind - get them. I fully believe that my working career trajectory would have been markedly different if I had gotten my PE - which I didn't get because of stupid beliefs along the lines of "I didn't need it" or "it would do nothing" or "it is baloney."
Tangurena is now following tim302
Oct 4, 2009
The "Bird's Nest" in China is vacant and unlikely to ever be used again. Built at great expense, and totally useless. Chicago is in such sad shape financially that winning the Olympics would mean that the feds would have to bail out the project. They can't afford to run their own parking meters, so they sold that to private companies. They can't afford to run their own toll-road, so those get sold in sweetheart deals to private companies guaranteeing them profits over the duration of the 50 and 99 year deals. >In June, Mayor Daley drew the ire of the City Council and the community after he did an about-face and said he’d sign the standard Olympic host city contract, one that puts taxpayers on the hook if Chicago wins the 2016 Games and loses on the deal.,daley-sign-olympic-deal-093009.stng And from the NYT, an interesting hypothesis for Chicago's loss: that our "security" infrastructure is so messed up that they didn't think that we'd let the contestants and their support staff into the US?
Toggle Commented Oct 4, 2009 on Olympics at John Robb's Weblog
People fear what they feel that they cannot control. In this case, the economy is proving to Joe Sixpack that the "American Dream" isn't something that he can achieve anymore - and J6P is lashing out at anyone and everyone who reminds him of it. Some people like to claim that "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man would be king." Such people haven't been out in the real world, where in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man would be put to death as a witch and/or traitor. There is a lot of anger out there, and the barking heads on the TV and radio are steering it. They don't recognize it, and will deny it if questioned, but I think we're heading for a very ugly situation in the near future. However, that anger would disapate if the economy picked back up.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2009 on Losing the plot at John Robb's Weblog
Goldman Sachs got the FBI to arrest this guy within a month of finding out what he did. That's about 18 times faster service than other intellectual property theft and computer crime cases involve. As an example, UBS had 3 employees quit that took a much smaller amount of proprietary source code and while UBS filed a lawsuit within 8 days of them quitting, no FBI arrests have come forth in the following 5 months. >So I'm sorry, but 32MB does not really seem like a lot of code these days. 32MB of data is a small amount. 32MB of executable (the exe and dlls that programs run) is a small amount. 32MB of source code is more text than most software developers write in their entire careers. This guy was a VP of software development, so he had far greater access to the source code control system than a regular developer would have had access to. This code was for a ultra-high-volume trading system, so it would get far more than 32Mb of data per day. Very few other companies in the business have the infrastructure to implement the data center this code ran on. Very few other companies in the business have the data feeds needed to utilize what this sort of code would have done. The following link has a copy of the criminal complaint, and it specifically states the downloads were source code, and not data. Some of the supposition involved in this case revolve around several things: In the past couple weeks, NYSE has announced the discontinuation of data about "program trades" of which GS was one of the larger players. The NYSE stayed open 15 extra minutes last week, for no good reason that has been explained yet. Goldman Sachs has a fascinating set of weasel words in their user agreement: >You acknowledge that we may monitor your use of the Services for our own purposes (and not for your benefit). We may use the resulting information for internal business purposes or in accordance with the rules of any applicable regulatory or self-regulatory body and in compliance with applicable law and regulation. This has lead lots of commenters and bloggers to suspect that Goldman Sachs engages in front-running.
1 reply
Record companies now require artists to sign "360 contracts." These give the studios a cut of every bit of revenue that the artists make - even if the studios have nothing to do with it. It used to be that touring was what made the band rich, but now, they're required to hand over 10% of box office receipts to the studios, and the CDs sold at venues have to be purchased at special prices from the studios at much higher than wholesale in order to gouge the bands and fans as much as possible. As an example of how wicked the problem can be, the band TLC managed to become the poster child of the syndrome. Their album Crazy Sexy Cool brought in $65,000,000 in sales, yet the 3 women of the band only received $50,000 to split amongst the 3 of them. For some other examples of studios gouging artists, Courtney Love's rant is a winner:
Toggle Commented Jul 4, 2009 on Ditto at John Robb's Weblog
No such bill shows up when searching for it on Thomas. Do you have a number for it?
Toggle Commented May 29, 2009 on Eat Your Spinach! at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
The sad thing is that the Obama administration appears to be doing all they can to aid the banks and nothing to aid the homeowners. $700B for bank bailouts, and it is almost all spent. $75B for homeowner bailouts, and none of it has been spent. Why? Because the rules for homeowner bailouts are so stringent that the only way to qualify for them is to be in the situation where you don't need them. And Obama seems to be walking hand-in-hand with the right wingers in trying to astroturf us all:
It appears that more than a few of Chrysler's bond-holders bet heavily on CDS, so Chrysler is worth far more dead to them than alive. And of course the taxpayers will have to bail out AIG some more because AIG gambled on those credit default swaps. And I note with some more bitter irony that the UAW pension fund got suckered into significant ownership of Chrysler, which was yet another way to pound a wooden stake through the hearts of unions. This will end up sinking the UAW's pension fund to the point it will need to be bailed out by PBGC, and thus bailed out by taxpayers yet again.
Toggle Commented May 4, 2009 on The Bottom at Clusterfuck Nation by Jim Kunstler
Is that Mission Directorate Program Management Handbook available online? When I googled it (in quotes), I only found your blog, a bunch of technorati links to your blog, and several blog scrapers (who steal content to repost to raise their google rank).
1 reply
>Did you see the New York Times hit piece that included not one confirmation? I wouldn't call it a "hit piece" as Newsweek's story showed: >A sworn deposition that Sen. John McCain gave in a lawsuit more than five years ago appears to contradict one part of a sweeping denial that his campaign issued this week to rebut a New York Times story about his ties to a Washington lobbyist. >On Wednesday night the Times published a story suggesting that McCain might have done legislative favors for the clients of the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, who worked for the firm of Alcalde & Fay. One example it cited were two letters McCain wrote in late 1999 demanding that the Federal Communications Commission act on a long-stalled bid by one of Iseman's clients, Florida-based Paxson Communications, to purchase a Pittsburgh television station. >Just hours after the Times's story was posted, the McCain campaign issued a point-by-point response that depicted the letters as routine correspondence handled by his staff—and insisted that McCain had never even spoken with anybody from Paxson or Alcalde & Fay about the matter. "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC," the campaign said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. >But that flat claim seems to be contradicted by an impeccable source: McCain himself. "I was contacted by Mr. [Lowell] Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint." If McCain swore in a deposition back in 2002 what his flacks are claiming this week to be false, then just who is lying? McCain or his staffers?
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2008 on The Assault on John McCain... at BlackFive
1 reply